NFIP: Insights for Colorado Wildfire Programs

1. NFIP: Insights for Colorado Wildfire Programs Karen Amrhein July 29, 2013 Wildfire Insurance and Forest Health Task Force

2. Agenda • My Background • Implementation Framework of NFIP, Map Mod and Risk MAP • Mapping Insurance and Risk Overview • Mapping Insurance - Lessons Learned • Best PracticesRisk MAP, CAV, CRS, Ordinances, CTP, HMPs • Actionable Risk Communication • Thoughts from the 2013 Natural Hazards Workshop

3. My Background NFIP LOMA Analyst Correspondence Special Projects Team Certified Floodplain Manager Outreach Materials Mapping Needs Assessment Cooperating Technical Partners Scope/Contract Development Map/Funding Prioritization Training MAP MOD CO/SD Map Mod Coordinator CO Compliance CO/SD/MT Map Scoping RISK MAP Discovery Community Engagement Resilience Risk Reduction and Local Action LOMA – Letter of Map Amendment Risk MAP – Mapping, Assessment, Planning

4. The NFIP • Flood insurance provided to property and structure owners in NFIP-participating communities • Participating communities • Adopt minimum floodplain development criteria • Maintain permitting process for SFHA • Insurance requirement for federally-backed mortgages in SFHA • Most disaster aid unavailable to non-participating communities NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program SFHA – Special Flood Hazard Area

5. Implementation Data Systems LOMAs LOMRs Congressional Funding FEMA HQ HQ Contractors Correspondence Guidance and Policy Support Mapping FEMA Regions 1-10 Regional Contractors Mitigation Planning & Grants Compliance Community Engagement Cooperating Technical Partners Regulatory Products (FIRM/FIS) Risk MAP Non-Regulatory Products Due Process

6. Mapping Project Scope Development Data Development Preliminary Release Comment Period Final Map Development Compliance Period Effective Map

7. Insurance and Risk Mapping Regulatory DataFEMA is to provide flood insurance zone data, with some Base Flood Elevations, to participating communities • FEMA Study - Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports • FEMA Modification - Physical Map Revision (PMR) • Community - Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) • Homeowner - Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)

8. Insurance Mapping Pitfalls • Subsidized premiums don’t reduce risk • Limited federal funding, many SFHAs are outdated • FIRM places properties IN or OUT, does not indicate level of risk • Homeowner perspectives • Not high risk = no risk (Insurance infrequently purchased for non-SFHA areas, even though 25% of claims are outside the SFHA) • Insurance reduces mitigation efforts • Maps are inaccurate • General negative opinion of FEMA forcing insurance SFHA – Special Flood Hazard Area FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map

9. Data Pitfalls – The Levee Situation • Regulatory requirement on levees • Um, “ignored” • Risk data inaccurate in levee-protected areas • Response: Provisionally-Accredited Levee System (PALS) • Katrina brings national attention • Levee-protected citizens unite against increased premiums • Response: Levee Analysis Mapping Procedures (LAMP) • What’s next? We will see… • Takeaway • Enforce regulations • Stand by solid data • Take steps to reduce “levee-protected” concept

10. Lessons Learned • Map development is complex and involved • Community engagement is important • Buy-in means ordinance adoption • Reduced high-level political involvement • Increased local action efforts • Increased local responsibility • “Level of risk” data better than “in or out” data • Enforce good data

11. Best Practices: Risk MAP • Discovery • Watershed-based • Proactive engagement of “Whole Community” • All hazards, all issues Mapping, Mitigation, Communication, Training • Capability Assessment • Resilience Meetings • Mitigation Planning and Action Conversation • Action Metric – Local Action Support • Pitfall – local responsibility? • Non-Regulatory Data • Flood Risk Map and Report • Flood Risk Database Areas of Mitigation Interest, Flood Depth Grids, Average Annualized Loss

12. Best Practice: CAVs Community Assistance Visits • Performed on State and Federal level • Quality important to success • One-on-one local program review • Community Tour • Ordinance conversation • Floodplain development permitting process review • Training and capability support

13. Best Practice: CRS Community Rating System • Voluntary community involvement • Encourages local risk reduction • Insurance premium reduction • Popularity increasing as insurance subsidies decreasing

14. Best Practice: Building Codes and Ordinances • Insurance • Essential for recovery • Creates complacency rather than mitigation • Ordinances and Building Codes • Require local conversation (good thing) • Require enforcement (resources) • Can still be based on risk level • Consistent • Marketing approach could activate “The Joneses Factor”

15. Best Practice? CTPs Cooperating Technical Partners • Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District • State partners • Mapping, outreach • Local insight, trust, relationships (good) • Program and technical knowledge (?) • “It’s not what it is, it’s what it could be.” • Leverage relationships • Set higher standards • Engage communities (counties) and facilitate dialogue • “The Joneses Factor” (counties)

16. Best Practice? HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan • Locally-developed mitigation action plan • Required for most disaster/mitigation grants • Pitfalls – many contractor-developed • Potential! • Facilitate local dialogue • Community-led risk reduction planning • Local outreach program? • “The Joneses Factor” (homeowners)

17. Actionable Risk Communication • Communicating Actionable Risk for Terrorism and Other Hazards, 2012, (Michele Wood, Dennis Mileti, and others) • Research focuses on trying to model the factors that actually matter in household readiness

18. What factors actually matter in household readiness? • “Although it feels good, our intuition about how to motivate behavior change often misses the mark.” • Not important: Level of Risk, Socio-economic status, geography • Most important: • The information received • Especially telling what actions to take and how those actions cut future losses • Multiple sources, multiple channels, frequently repeated • Milling • Talking about getting ready with others • Monkey See, Monkey Do (The Joneses Factor) • Seeing others get ready is strongest motivation

19. Actionable Risk Communication More Resilient Communities

20. Thoughts from 2013 Hazard Workshop • People are not prepared • Insurance reduces consumer effort to mitigate • Subsidized insurance reduces success in risk reduction • Mitigation Transfer Fee • Perception: Not “high-risk” = “no risk” • Important Message: Resilience is everyone’s responsibility – local, household, individual • Community resilience must be community-led • Whole Community is essential

21. Questions and Discussion Resilience is our responsibility.